>> I'll try a more varied set of tests tonight, with cpu usage tabulated.
> Please do a few non-swap tests too.
> Swapping is the thing that rmap is supposed to _help_, so improvements in
> that area are good (and had better happen!), but if you're only looking at
> the swap performance, you're ignoring the known problems with rmap, ie the
> cases where non-rmap kernels do really well.
> Comparing one but not the other doesn't give a very balanced picture..
It would also be interesting to see memory consumption figures for a benchmark
with many large processes. With this type of load, memory consumption
through PTEs is already a problem - as far as I can see, rmap triples the
memory requirement of PTEs through the PTE chain's doubly linked list
(an additional 8 bytes per entry) ... perhaps my calculations are wrong?
This is particular problem for databases that tend to have thousands of
processes attatched to a large shared memory area.
A quick rough calculation indicates that the Oracle test I was helping out
with was consuming almost 10Gb of PTEs without rmap - 30Gb for overhead
doesn't sound like fun to me ;-(
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 30 2002 - 22:00:08 EST